From: Ruby
Jones, there are five different theories that are currently isolated islands in a sea of perpetually prototype technology. No one agrees on anything, and there is no discussion about the assumptions in each theory, about how those assumptions are plausible, or not, and how the twenty-five years of data is expressed in each of those theories. There is no discussion about hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion as predictions are few. As an advocate, I want to see some serious discussion about these issues to get this thing figured out. I don't care which theory is ultimately chosen. I want a technology and some new lifestyle options! Storms raises good questions. I can only hope egos are dropped, poor communication skills are forgiven, and the smart people in the room do something tangible to make LENR a reality. Yes it is frustrating but the glimmer of hope is that our deep level of frustration, shared by almost everyone on this list, points directly to the emerging answer. And - we appreciate your work as an advocate, Ruby. Egos and poor communication are part of the problem which you are addressing. But smart people are involved, needy and smart; and with more data – the correct answer(s) will emerge. We are on the cusp of that in 2014, and thirsty for more accurate data. That there was really nothing new in Storm’s book, especially new data - is part of the frustration level. He has done such good experimental work is the past, that there was an expectation of a breakthrough coming from his Lab and not from his Library. But that overall answer – as to which theory is correct - is an answer that will not please everyone, and perhaps not please anyone - since the correct answer will simply be something closer to “all-of-them” instead of “one-or-the-other.” That is too glib, so let me explain. There are indeed at least five good theories or partial theories - more like 12 if we count “facilitating concepts” as a theory, of which Ed’s is but one, but they are not “isolated islands”. Many of them, even all of them interact, and will probably be shown to be partially active in the same experiment. The good-news / bad-news for Ed Storms book is that the NAE observation could be among the most active, seen in almost all experiments… ! hurray ! … but the bad news is that Storms’ further assertion of protons fusing to deuterium could be active in only a few ppm – almost never. If true, this is hurtful to Ed, who has convinced himself that he alone has this problem figured out. Thus he is not happy with the criticism. Same for W-L in that some ultra-cold neutrons are likely to be found, but their explanation is grossly insufficient. Same for Rossi-Focardi – in claiming nickel transmutation. Rossi is already backing-off ANY theory, including Focardi’s, since he has better data – not yet shared. Do not sell Rossi short. He is a cantankerous genius, but well-read, and Storms made a mistake is not adding an entire chapter on Rossi and Mills. It would not surprise me to learn that Rossi reads this forum. And although nickel > copper is a reaction which could happen occasionally, it is probably down there in the ppm range, about the same as Storm’s P-e-P. But it explains Piantelli’s oddball results better than he can. LENR is a complex multi-layered phenomenon in which most of the theories could be partially relevant to one degree or another. QM is about probability. The GUT will simply integrate them in a new way, when it happens. Randell Mills’ orbital shrinkage (in several versions - coming from observers other than Mills) will be involved - and that species which is created could ironically lead directly to Storms’ preferred reaction… and to other LENR reactions. But that outcome does not please Mills since it is nuclear, and minimizes CQM. Thus neither of those of the competing theories is wrong and neither is adequate, and more troubling - this same interplay is happening with many other “partly correct” theories at some significant percentage. QM is not for wimps. BTW - Storms was out of character to “dis” quantum tunneling. I find that most bizarre. Inherent and unfolding complexity is the name of the game. It is anti-Ockham. It turns off everyone, in general, and thus the uber-concept of a multi-faceted, intertwined GUT is not popular. But think about hydrogen in general – it is 90+% of the Universe. Can we really expect it to be simple? Since no single theorist can make a name for himself everyone seems to focus on a niche, and pretend that they can cherry pick data from various places, but in the end – the best answer will become obvious. And most surprising: much of that correct answer is now hidden in plain view. Jones
